Educators are in an arms race these days against an industry that seeks to profit by helping students cheat. Some websites offer to write papers for students, others sell access to past tests by individual professors, and others will even take entire online courses for students, as a kind of study double.
January 28, 3PM Live: How to Protect Academic Integrity From a ‘Cheating Economy.’ We’ll see you on Tuesday, January 28 at 1pm PT/4pm ET at this Zoom link or with the Meeting ID: 655-009-467.
question to Tricia: the aggressiveness of the Websites. radio silence by governments, universities.
is there a data on contract cheating: data from Australia, UK. 7 Mil students worldwide engaged in contsure
punitive vs preventive practices.
students being educated for that matter faculty.
stakeholders: students, faculty (accreditation), parents, administration. what the forces in place to keep in check the administration/
how does the education happen in a world where the grade is the king and the credit is the queen?
If i organize a workshop on cheating noone attends; overworked
not magic bullet. more communication and awareness. teaching and learning issue. in the business of certifying. integrity is essential to the certification program and teaching and learning, otherwise it cannot be graded. lost from the core mission.
clear and better policies: what is the role of the faculty in the process. when teaching and learning is not sufficient and needs to move to allegations.
Instructional designer: online is easier to cheat.
more on cheating in this IMS blog
more on cheating in this IMS blog
How Educating Students About Dishonesty Can Help Curb Cheating
How Educating Students About Dishonesty Can Help Curb Cheating
Cheating remains a stubborn problem at many schools. According to the Educational Testing Service and the Ad Council, who define cheating as “representing someone else’s work as your own,” cheating tends to start in junior high, peak in high school, and occur most often in math and science classes. Men and women cheat in equal measure, both sexes aided by the ubiquity of computers and the internet, and most cheaters aren’t caught. Both high- and low-achieving students find ways to misrepresent their work, explaining away their misconduct with familiar rationalizations: everybody does it, it’s a victimless crime, and getting the grade matters more.
while few cheat a lot—20 of the 40,000 involved in the experiments—many more—about 28,000—cheated a little bit. Most everyone has what he calls a “personal fudge factor” that allows for just a little dishonesty, provided that the conditions are right. For example, if people see others cheating without consequence, they’re more apt to do the same; social norms permit it. If cheating seems to benefit a “good cause,” even more feel comfortable deceiving.
more on cheating and academic dishonesty in this IMS blog
2001 article that illustrated nicely the challenge we face in helping students do their work with integrity.
the form of plagiarism continues into graduate school, where plagiarism remains, by far, the most common form of academic dishonesty.
the article repeats to a degree what is already known:
namely, that plagiarism is in a much smaller degree intentional and to its largest percentage lack of systematic approach and clear directions by faculty toward students.
Rebecca Moore Howard, a professor of writing and rhetoric at Syracuse University, has called “patchwriting,” or borrowing large sentence structures and vocabularies from a source and only swapping out the occasional word or phrase with language of their own.
academic integrity represents an incredibly complex subject to master: It encompasses knowledge (What are the rules of academic integrity? How do they apply in this context?), skills (How do I summarize or paraphrase this passage without plagiarizing? How do I credit the work of others when I am collaborating with peers or using sources?), and values (Why does academic integrity matter? Why should I care about it?).
“Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing.”
― Salvador Dalí
Nice short visual online tutorial, which can help with ideas…:
A charter chain thinks it has the answer for alternative schools
Critics complain that the schools lack rigor and often use software programs vulnerable to cheating, such as Edgenuity. https://www.edgenuity.com/login/
Bixby also pushed back on the idea, expressed by some alternative school critics, that students in traditional classrooms, with teachers who each see over 150 pupils a day, are assured a more meaningful experience. Altus students are assigned to one main teacher who becomes responsible for each of their students’ progress throughout their time in the program. The network aims to assign no more than 40 students to each teacher so that they have time to get to know them. And all instruction is delivered one-on-one or in small groups.
more on charter schools in this IMS blog
1. Anti-School Shooter Software
4. “The Year of the MOOC” (2012)
6. “Everyone Should Learn to Code”
8. LAUSD’s iPad Initiative (2013)
9. Virtual Charter Schools
10. Google for Education
14. inBloom. The Shared Learning Collaborative (2011)
17. Test Prep
20. Predictive Analytics
22. Automated Essay Grading
25. Peter Thiel
26. Google Glass
32. Common Core State Standards
44. YouTube, the New “Educational TV”
48. The Hour of Code
49. Yik Yak
52. Virtual Reality
57. TurnItIn (and the Cheating Detection Racket) (my note: repeating the same for years: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=turnitin)
64. Alexa at School
65. Apple’s iTextbooks (2011)
67. UC Berkeley Deletes Its Online Lectures. ADA
72. Chatbot Instructors. IBM Watson “AI” technology (2016)
82. “The End of Library” Stories (and the Software that Seems to Support That)
92. “The Flipped Classroom”
93. 3D Printing
100. The Horizon Report
five of the biggest education stories of the year
Stagnant Student Performance and Widening Achievement Gaps
a vociferous debate over what to blame, from subpar reading instruction to poverty to uneven implementation of the Common Core
A Crisis in Elite College Admissions
Declining Trust in Higher Education
a survey from the Pew Research Center found that 59 percent of Republicans and those who lean Republican believe colleges have a negative effect on the country.
Betsy DeVos, continued to draw criticism for rolling back oversight of for-profit colleges and weakening protections for bilked students.
The Democratic Party Backed Away From Charter Schools
Charters in cities like New York and Boston have shown promising achievement gains. But the sector has come under increasing fire on the left for harsh discipline practices, contributing to school segregation and serving fewer students with special needs. Teachers unions tend to oppose the schools’ expansion, since most of them are not unionized.
Democrats Continue to Debate School Segregation
school segregation remains a defining feature of the American education system today,
Posted by Andy Freed |April 2019 /
Announcing Proctor-ring, a new biometric tool in the war on cheating.
Starting today, Online Learning has partnered with the Academic Integrity Task Force and that import shop in the strip mall on Hwy 99 to provide a new, low cost option for improving the integrity of your exams. The Proctor-ring uses mood ring technology to identify common changes in human emotion that have been calibrated to identify academic dishonesty. While many vendors will sell you very expensive tools to combat cheating, the Proctor-ring is cost effective and scales well across all disciplines.
According to the latest report from Babson Survey Research Group, nearly 6.5 million American undergraduates now take at least one course online
1. Listen to students and faculty. Every college, university, or online-learning provider has a different approach to online learning. At Indiana University, where more than 30 percent of students take at least one online course, the online education team has launched Next.IU, an innovative pilot program to solicit feedback from the campus community before making any major edtech decision. By soliciting direct feedback from students and faculty, institutions can avoid technical difficulties and secure support before rolling out the technology campus-wide.
2. Go mobile. Nine in 10 undergraduates own a smartphone, and the majority of online students complete some coursework on a mobile device. Tapping into the near-ubiquity of mobile computing on campus can help streamline the proctoring and verification process. Rather than having to log onto a desktop, students can use features like fingerprint scan and facial recognition that are already integrated into most smartphones to verify their identity directly from their mobile device.
For a growing number of students, mobile technology is the most accessible way to engage in online coursework, so mobile verification provides not only a set of advanced security tools, but also a way for universities to meet students where they are.
3. Learn from the data. Analytical approaches to online test security are still in the early stages. Schools may be more susceptible to online “heists” if they are of a certain size or administer exams in a certain way, but institutions need data to benchmark against their peers and identify pain points in their approach to proctoring.
In an initial pilot with 325,000 students, for instance, we found that cheating rose and fell with the seasons—falling from 6.62 percent to 5.49 percent from fall to spring, but rising to a new high of 6.65 percent during the summer.
more on proctoring in this IMS blog